"The Chief Minister and Minister for Home Affairs have emerged from this saga with no disciplinary case, no Chief Officer, a pending report from a QC likely to be critical of the Island’s Government, and a bill for over a million pounds. They are not well placed to criticise the actions of others" Deputy Bob Hill.............................................
Trevor Pitmans Blog.......................................BALDTRUTH"

Monday, April 25, 2011

The Napier Debacle

Ian Le Marquand Philip Ozouf Terry Le Sueur

"I remain shoulder to shoulder with the Minister for Home Affairs and the Chief Minister in relation to all the other issues, which have been debated in this Assembly. " Philip Ozouf

Napier

The Deputy Chief Minister now enters the fight

Why has this turned into a complete and utter Farce?

What guarantee that the TOR for a Committee of Enquiry will be set in Stone?

We now have 4 different TOR for the Napier Report

This is getting so shockingly bad

This lot just do as they please. Put it along side the Wiltshire debacle and you'll see what I mean

The States of Jersey pass the Terms of Reference for a review into the suspension of Graham Power and the rest should be history

WRONG

As with everything this elite club of Government touches we get Incompetence or is it corruption? Could it be a mixture of both?

Apart from the actual changes to the TOR and who did what other things are significant. One is the lack of a basic audit trail of the decision making process. Who decided what and when and on what basis? Where are the notes and records of these decisions?

Another is the issue of confidence and perception. On matters like this it's not just important to do the right things but to be seen doing them in a way which is transparent and accountable and does not lend itself to alternative explanations. It's important that States Members and the public at large have confidence in the integrity of an enquiry of this nature. At the very best the Chief Ministers Department has bungled this so badly that they have destroyed confidence in the Napier enquiry. At the worst, they have fiddled the TOR to minimise the damage to BO.

I will be looking at the DCM's reply's. I will publish the Hansard as a comment as it would make the posting to long

I must give Senator Ozouf credit for not ducking the question. He could so easily have let it pass. To his credit he got to his feet, then it all went Pete Tong.

But let us look at some quotes from Senator Ozouf;

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I accept that there were wording changes between the terms of reference that was in this Assembly and those that Mr. Napier put in his report. I accept that and it is Mr. Napier who asked for indeed (c)(iii) to be put in and he omitted it, but he has covered it in his report. So, I think that there almost needs to be acknowledgement on both sides that yes there were some changes in the terms of reference but the most important thing is; has that mattered in the end product of the report?

So are we now saying that TOR's can be changed after they have been passed in the states?

Are we saying that Brian Napier can alter his TOR's? Is this Legal or good practice?

I have emailed and asked Brian Napier for a responce

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

he issue concerning part (d) has been the subject of many questions already in the Assembly and the Chief Minister has provided detailed answers on each occasion. I will repeat what he has said, that following the former Police Chief’s agreement to participate fully in the review, part (d) was no longer relevant and for that reason Mr. Napier did not reproduce it in his report. Therefore the Chief Minister has stated that it would not be necessary for the changes referred to, to be referred to him or the Deputy of St. Martin.

WRONG

What kind of research was the DCM doing. Has he not remembered Graham Powers letter of the 31st March 2010. He should have started with this posting

I perhaps have had the benefit of looking at this issue afresh having been advised that the Chief Minister was not going to be here. I have had to research these answers and come up with the explanation to the Assembly. I have to say that I am astonished having looked at this issue afresh with almost no baggage in relation to it. There is no confusion. The terms of reference as originally set out have been included in the report. There were some changes made. They are minor, they are insignificant, they are Mr. Napier’s but more importantly, the issues that the Deputy continues to suggest were not covered in the terms of reference have been covered in the report.

They are Minor, they are insignificant - Oh really but to whom?

Let me again show you how the TOR's for Napier have taken on a life of their own since leaving the floor of the house. Keep your eye on part D and E

The Original - is in Black

The second is - R39/2010 lodged by the COM with D+E removed - this is in Blue

The third is - The TOR used by Brian Napier - this is in green

The Fourth - R39./2010 (re-issue) in Red

2. Terms of Reference

The purpose of the Review is to –

(a) Examine the procedure employed by the Chief Minister’s Department and the Minister for Home Affairs in the period leading up to the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police on 12th November 2008.

(b) Review the manner in which senior officers collated the information and presented it to the Minister for Home Affairs that ultimately led to the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police.

(c) Investigate whether the procedure for dealing with the original suspension was correctly followed at all times, including –

(i) the reason for the immediate suspension of the Chief Officer of Police;

(ii) whether there were any procedural errors in managing the suspension process.

(d) Review all information relating to the original suspension procedure, including relevant sections of the published Affidavit from the suspended Chief Officer of Police.

(e) The Report should highlight any areas where, in the opinion of the Commissioner, sufficient evidence exists that would support in the interests of open government a full Committee of Inquiry into the manner in which the Chief Officer of Police was suspended on 12th November 2008.

Now, We have R39/2010 a report lodged by the COM ref Napier Report on the 14th April 2010

The purpose of the Review is to – ( Not drop part D & E)

. (a) Examine the procedure employed by the Chief Minister’s Department and the Minister for Home Affairs in the period leading up to the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police on 12th November 2008.

(b) Review the manner in which senior officers collated the information and presented it to the Minister for Home Affairs that ultimately led to the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police.

(c) Investigate whether the procedure for dealing with the original suspension was correctly followed at all times, including –

(i) The reason for the immediate suspension of the Chief Officer of Police.

(ii) Whether there were any procedural errors in managing the suspension process.

(iii) The recording of material relating to the primary events of the suspension process.

So, the Chief Minister is blaming this on a clerical error. Ok, so we give him the benefit of the doubt, they notice the mistake inform all parties and the TOR is back to the original... No Baby (This is Jersey). Part D is the killer. BO knows it, everyone with an ounce of (Common Sense) knows it. But where has C (iii) come from? It's not in the original

Let us look at Napiers TOR for the Final Report; They have used part E from the original TOR and are now using it as Part D. What a little magic trick. Highlighted in Red

Terms of Reference The purpose of the Review is to:-

a) Examine the procedure employed by the Chief Minister’s Department and theHome Affairs Minister in the period leading up to the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police on 12 November 2008.

b) Review the manner in which senior officers managed the assembly of key information used in the decision making process that ultimately led to the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police.

c) Investigate whether the procedure for dealing with the suspension was correctly followed at all times including:-

i. The reason for the immediate suspension of the Chief Officer of Police

ii. Whether there were any procedural errors in managing the suspension process.

d) The Report should highlight any areas where in the opinion of the Commissioner sufficient evidence exists that would support, in the interests of open government a full Committee of Inquiry into the manner in which the Chief Officer of Police was suspended on 12 November 2008.

Now that is a complete change. The terms of reference have been altered. This has now narrowed down Brian Napiers Remit. Can it be right that TOR;s are altered after being passed in the States.? Surely any change must be brought back to the house.

The original D has disappeared and been replaced with the original E

But that's not the last of it because we now have the R.39/2010 (re-issue) and guess what! We have a new part inserted. How has a set of TOR been so tampered with? Why have we ended up with this?

Look out now for the magical C (iii)

Do you see how very stupid this is getting. Im led to believe there is an independent person investigating this shambles. Any news I get on that will be shared with my readers.

We are a Shambles

Thank the Lord the we have Deputy Bob Hill, Deputy Pitman and Deputy Wimberly. They have tried their best to get some kind of answers from our ruling elite. I cant thank them enough thats for sure

Now we roll onto the last set R39./2010 (RE-ISSUE)

Why did it go so badly wrong when the TOR's were passed in the States?

My guess is Bill Ogly - If all was ok we wouldn't have had this mess

The purpose of the Review is to –

(a) Examine the procedure employed by the Chief Minister’s Department

and the Minister for Home Affairs in the period leading up to the

suspension of the Chief Officer of Police on 12th November 2008.

(b) Review the manner in which senior officers collated the information

and presented it to the Minister for Home Affairs that ultimately led to

the suspension of the Chief Officer of Police.

(c) Investigate whether the procedure for dealing with the original

suspension was correctly followed at all times, including –

(i) The reason for the immediate suspension of the Chief Officer

of Police.

(ii) Whether there were any procedural errors in managing the

suspension process.

(iii) The recording of material relating to the primary events of the

suspension process.

(d) Review all information relating to the original suspension procedure

26 comments:

4.9 Deputy T.M. Pitman of the Chief Minister regarding the Terms of Reference in the Napier Report:

Will the Chief Minister inform Members why part (b) of the terms of reference shown in R.39/2010 (re-issue) was amended in the Napier Terms of Reference published in R.132/2010, and why part (d) and part (c)(iii) are included but do not appear in the Napier terms of reference provided in R.132/2010? Would he also state why Members were not informed that these parts had been removed?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (Deputy Chief Minister - rapporteur):

Mr. Brian Napier Q.C. (Queens Counsel) has confirmed that he is not aware of any changes of the words in part (b) of the terms of reference between those he agreed when he was formerly engaged, and the ones that appeared in the final report. The report is therefore his and his interpretation. I am advised in respect of part (c)(iii) that this was a specific clause inserted into the original terms of reference at Mr. Napier’s request when he was finalising his engagement. He has confirmed that he omitted them when he prepared his final report. The terms of reference were therefore never changed and therefore any suggestion that they were is incorrect. The issue concerning part (d) has been the subject of many questions already in the Assembly and the Chief Minister has provided detailed answers on each occasion. I will repeat what he has said, that following the former Police Chief’s agreement to participate fully in the review, part (d) was no longer relevant and for that reason Mr. Napier did not reproduce it in his report. Therefore the Chief Minister has stated that it would not be necessary for the changes referred to, to be referred to him or the Deputy of St. Martin.

4.9.1 The Deputy of St. Martin:

Given the confusion over the number of terms of reference, will the Deputy Chief Minister agree to make a statement or ask the Chief Minister to make a statement as to why there have been so many discrepancies in the terms of reference, and apologise to Members for failing to carry out a full investigation of the discrepancies before giving so many different and inaccurate answers to Members over the recent months?

I perhaps have had the benefit of looking at this issue afresh having been advised that the Chief Minister was not going to be here. I have had to research these answers and come up with the explanation to the Assembly. I have to say that I am astonished having looked at this issue afresh with almost no baggage in relation to it. There is no confusion. The terms of reference as originally set out have been included in the report. There were some changes made. They are minor, they are insignificant, they are Mr. Napier’s but more importantly, the issues that the Deputy continues to suggest were not covered in the terms of reference have been covered in the report. I simply over the last few hours, and I have spent a few hours over the last day looking at this… I do not understand what the issue is. I think the continued suggestion that there has somehow been a problem in this report is frankly a waste of the Chief Minister’s time and it has been a waste of my time in the last few hours.

4.9.2 The Deputy of St. Mary:

I will enlighten or try to enlighten the Deputy Chief Minister about what one of the problems is, which is that part (d) was taken out on the basis that Mr. Power had said that he would co-operate with the inquiry, and in fact when Mr. Power said that he qualified that statement heavily as anyone who read his letter would agree. That is the kind of problem we are facing; that we are told he is willing to co-operate when it is simply untrue. He is willing to co-operate on condition that 1, 2 and 3, none of which had been met at that time. So it simply does not stack-up. My question to the Deputy Chief Minister is, if (c)(iii) - which I have just learnt about now - is the recording of material relating to the primary events of the suspension process, if that term of reference was put in, inserted at Mr. Napier’s request, that is all fine and good but surely the person being asked to do a review, if they start to change the terms of reference that change should come back to the 2 people who are supposed to be supervising the review, namely the Chief Minister and the Deputy of St. Martin. I ask the Deputy Chief Minister to comment on that?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:Nothing that I have heard in the questions diverts me from the conclusion that I have reached. This is a complete load of nonsense. We are talking about terms of reference that there were some changes in the report, which is not the Chief Minister’s report, which is not the Chief Minister’s Department’s report, it is Mr. Napier’s report. The issues that the Deputies continue to raise in respect of whether or not the terms of reference were exactly transposed in the final report, they are almost missing the point. The point is that the report covers those issues. There are 3 references or 2 or 3 references in respect of (d) in the report, and I just do not understand why the Assembly is taking its time up in carrying on, going on about the wording of the terms of reference, where the terms of reference are a terms of reference which result in a report and the report covers these issues, and I do not think that there is any suggestion that it does not.4.9.3 Deputy T.M. Pitman:I would hope that the Deputy Chief Minister did not mean that “load of nonsense”. Would he surely not conclude that we are talking about a gentleman’s reputation - lifelong reputation - and would he not agree with me at the very least that all this could have been avoided had the other side of the story been allowed to be put, and this is where all these problems come from. I do appreciate that he may say it is not the Minister for Home Affairs’ fault but natural justice, does he support it or not?Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:I am not going to comment on the generality of the issue. I have been asked a specific question in relation to the terms of reference, and in relation to the transposition of the terms of reference from the original one that was set out and set out in Mr. Napier’s report. There is nothing that I have reviewed that gives me any indication that there is a problem. I am not going to comment on the remaining things. I remain shoulder to shoulder with the Minister for Home Affairs and the Chief Minister in relation to all the other issues, which have been debated in this Assembly. There comes a point at which an issue needs to be brought to a conclusion and this questioning about words in terms of reference, I do not think is helping the whole debate being brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

4.9.4 Deputy M. Tadier:The Minister is doing a valiant attempt to try and deflect from the issue, saying that words are not important but it is words which were debated here, and we know as parliamentarians that words are key.[11:45]When certain words that are agreed by the Assembly are omitted for whatever reason then that can have a significant impact. I hope the Minister would agree with that point. Does he acknowledge that there is a difference between saying that Napier covered these issues to do with parts (d) and (c) but he covered them in spite of the fact that they were not included in the terms of reference, and if he had been given the terms of reference as had been set out by this Assembly and agreed between the Deputy of St. Martin, the Chief Minister and the whole Assembly, he may have come to different conclusions - and different or even deeper - and more words on the issues relating to parts (c) and (d)?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I cannot see that. I have to say that I do agree with the Deputy that words are important but the difference in wording in relation to (b) in respect of that is the sum total of the words, and the Deputy is a better English scholar than I am, but I certainly see that the wording of the original terms of reference and what was in the report is identical in terms of its plain English meaning and the other issues have been covered. I would just also ... the suggestion is that this is a criticism of the Chief Minister or the Chief Minister’s Department, and I think the point needs to be forcefully made, that it is Mr. Napier’s report, not the Chief Minister’s report. That is an important issue. If Mr. Napier had a problem then he would have said so in his report. The constant debate about the wording of the terms of reference I think is missing the point, if I may say respectfully.

9.5 Deputy M. Tadier:

Irrespective of what the consequences were in the report due to the fact that terms of reference had been missed out, will the speaker on behalf of the Chief Minister not acknowledge the fact that this House, the Deputy of St. Martin, all of us are owed an explanation and indeed I believe an apology from somebody to find out why terms of reference that were agreed in this Assembly have been somehow omitted, which have possibly and quite likely had an impact on the results of that report? We are simply asking for an acknowledgement and an apology so we can move on.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf:

I accept that there were wording changes between the terms of reference that was in this Assembly and those that Mr. Napier put in his report. I accept that and it is Mr. Napier who asked for indeed (c)(iii) to be put in and he omitted it, but he has covered it in his report. So, I think that there almost needs to be acknowledgement on both sides that yes there were some changes in the terms of reference but the most important thing is; has that mattered in the end product of the report? I have to say that nothing that I have seen leads me to the conclusion that the report would be any different. It is quite wrong I think to cast aspersions on the Chief Minister or his department to suggest that there would be anything else. I think the matter now should be closed in relation to this issue. The Chief Minister has answered numerous questions on this issue. There is not the issue that the Deputies are suggesting and I think that that has to be a conclusion of the matter.

What can one say? Our island is lawless, leaderless, shameless. It doesn't seem to matter what TOR's are agreed by our parliament because they can just be altered to suit certain individuals agendas. Make up as many different stories as they like as to how the TOR's changed so much and so many times and nobody held to account. "THE JERSEY WAY"

Ozouf says, 'The terms of reference as originally set out have been included in the report. There were some changes made. They are minor, they are insignificant, they are Mr. Napier’s.'

It would be extremely unusual for someone such as Brian Napier to change the TOR by himself, as Ozouf has stated. And certainly, any proposed changes would have to be brought back to the house for approval.

Police are being trained to track down criminals on the internetSTATES police officers are being specially trained to scour the internet – includingsocial networking site Facebook – to bring criminals to justice.

DI Chris Beechey, the head of the force’s CID unit, revealed that the training had proved crucial in securing the conviction of offenders.

He made the comments following the case in the Magistrate’s Court last week of a 16-year-old girl who posted a video of herself on Facebook driving illegally.

I find this very interesting. What the police should be doing is educating parents about their children accepting friends request from people they don't know. Bogus Facebook accounts are on the rise and it has happened locally. I have been investigating this for sometime and it's a real danger. I cant say anymore at this moment until the Law office come to a conclusion. But make no mistake I will be blogging about it and sharing my research all parents must be aware of the dangers of Facebook.

If what our Deputy Chief Minister Phillip Ozouf appears to be alleging is correct and Brian Napier QC changed the terms of reference that were given to him by our elected parliament then this is serious stuff. If you don't get a "satisfactory" reply from Mr. Napier then serious questions need to be asked as to why not?

Who gets the invites? Members of the 'accredited' press and government departments have so far accepted. Get ready for the next wave upon wave of spin and propoganda. What a nasty bunch these people really are.

Rico,a teachers from each Jersey school were trained by CEOPS to deliver age appropriate training in their schools regarding the dangers of social networking sites and how to keep themselves safe on line, sessions have also been put on for parents,A competition was held for a pupil to design a logo the winner got a laptop,the logo was think b4u clickCEOP is the Child Exploitation Online Protection unit of the UK police,they have been to Jersey twice to train teachers and youth workers,they have a very useful website

Wonder if the people who should really get invites are neglected i.e. abuse survivors?? Well obviously not, because I do not know of any who have.

The 'Invited' could have shown far more respect for yet another slap in the face for abuse survivors by declining the invitation, but no, got to be seen with the right rotten crowd who do not give two monkeys about the rights and wrongs of this.

As Anonymous so rightly says, what a nasty bunch of people these really are.

One of the problems with Terms of Reference, is that, anything that is not included is not within the remit and therefore must be disregarded. This was spelt out by Verita:--

"I understood that these new Terms of Reference were fully inclusive and would cover the suspension of the Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist. I believe this was the Assembly’s understanding also. Given the concerns being expressed by Members regarding the continuation of this lengthy and very expensive suspension of a respected Hospital Consultant, I also believe they would not have supported the retention of Verita if they had not been reassured that Verita would be addressing this matter.

However, I have discovered that Verita are now saying that the suspension of the Consultant does not fall within their remit, and that they have asked the Minister for Health and Social Services to extend their Terms of Reference again, so that they can report on matters relating to the Consultant’s suspension."